Andrew MacKinlay: In any of those meetings since May, did Greenpeace raise with Ministers the fact that Sizewell B's nuclear reactor was closed down—"unplanned" was the word used by the official spokesperson for the industry—and that when the spokesperson was asked why and what the circumstances were, no statement was forthcoming? Is it not time that Greenpeace and the House were told what the circumstances were relating to the closedown of the Sizewell B reactor in May—unplanned?

Gregory Barker: The Conservatives strongly agree with Greenpeace that an ambitious roll-out of microgeneration should be a key part of the UK's climate change strategy, but to make that happen, we must have a comprehensive system of feed-in tariffs. On 20 February, before the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Secretary of State himself, like many on the Labour Back Benches, strongly supported the role of feed-in tariffs, so why did he roll over and allow DBERR to squash feed-in tariff amendment in the Energy Bill?

David Chaytor: When the Secretary of State meets Greenpeace on the next occasion, will he put on the agenda the question of peak oil? Is that not really the elephant in the room? If it is true, as BP says this week, that given the growing demand from China, India and other newly industrialising countries, there may be only four decades of oil left in the world and we are about to reach the peak. Is it not necessary that everybody understands that, so we need to generate a much deeper public debate about the finite nature of oil reserves?

Jonathan R Shaw: Estimates of pig farm incomes were published in January. The sector's profits have been particularly hit by feed price increases. The average commercial pig farm is expected to show a loss of income of around £4,100 for the period between March 2007 and February 2008. Pig meat prices have risen steadily in 2008. If that continues, we expect to see a partial recovery in profitability over the next 12 months, although global harvests and feed prices remain a key factor.

David Heath: The pig industry is entering a crisis that goes well beyond cyclical variations. Even with the improvements in prices, the pig farmer is losing an average of £12 for every pig, with losses for pig farmers this year likely to total £170 million and more than 50 per cent. of the national breeding herd lost. Given that, is there not something extraordinary about the fact that supermarket prices are going up, yet the primary producers are not benefiting from that? Yet again, is there not something seriously wrong with the supply chain that the Government would do well to look into?

Jonathan R Shaw: We do recognise the difficulties faced by the pig industry, and DEFRA works closely with the British Pig Executive. Indeed, my noble Friend Lord Rooker attended a meeting this week. The pig industry has mounted a campaign, and I attended its conference in Norwich last week. I had a clear message for the supermarket suppliers, which attended the conference, which was that they must take care of the primary producer. When Asda produces a pack of sausages for 16p, that does not help the primary producer. We must support the pig industry's campaign. I am sure that all hon. Members will do so, because it produces a fine product and its animal welfare is good. We recognise that feed prices are an issue not just for British pig farmers, but for European pig farmers across the board, who also attended the conference. We are working closely with the industry and we hope to see prices increase. The hon. Gentleman makes his point about the primary producers well.

Ian Cawsey: I endorse everything that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said. I attended the British Pig Executive emergency meeting in the House earlier this week to discuss this very matter. I realise that my hon. Friend is working hard on the issue, but may I encourage him to ensure that public procurement includes British pork and pig meat products? I know that contracts have to be tendered, but if he could include animal welfare standards in the specifications, that would not only receive wide public support, but ensure that British pig farmers across the country reaped the benefit of the fine standards on their farms.

Richard Bacon: Farmers were very pleased to see Lord Rooker at the meeting earlier this week. We all thank him for taking the trouble to attend, and we know that he takes the industry seriously. The Minister mentioned that it was not possible to restrict purchases, but it is possible to improve labelling. Since there is already a requirement for the country of origin to be labelled in respect of fresh fruit, vegetables and beef, does he agree that there is no legal impediment to having the same for pork and pork products, and that that would bring a significant extra benefit for British farmers?

Jonathan R Shaw: The hon. Gentleman is right. We are seeing improvements in labelling. Supermarkets and independent stores are increasingly using the strength of local purchase. One can often see pictures of the farmer and the farm that the produce came from. That helps the consumer to make informed choices. I can tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that new food information proposals have come forward from the European Community that, in the case of meat, would require the countries of birth, rearing and slaughter where these are not the same. I hope that those proposals will go some way towards addressing his concerns. The Food Standards Agency is consulting on the matter. I am sure that he and other hon. Members who are concerned about the pig industry, as well as the industry itself, will make a contribution to that consultation.
	We have to support the pig industry, which has run an excellent campaign, called "Stand By Your Ham"—perhaps hon. Members have seen the video, which is based on the Dolly Parton song and features leading members of the industry, including the fine gentleman Stewart Houston, chairman of the British Pig Executive. We do not want him to give up his day job and start singing—his singing is perhaps not up to Dolly Parton's standards—but we do want him to continue leading the pig industry, which we need to support. We hope that we see better times this year and in years to come.

Harriet Harman: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 16 June—Second Reading of the Children and Young Persons Bill [ Lords].
	Tuesday 17 June—Opposition day [14th allotted day]. There will be a debate on the Government's plans for polyclinics followed by a debate on sentencing policy and the early release of offenders. Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion.
	Wednesday 18 June—A general debate on European affairs.
	Thursday 19 June—Topical debate: subject to be announced, followed by a general debate on defence procurement.
	Friday 20 June—Private Members' Bills.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 23 June will include:
	Monday 23 June—It is expected that there will be a statement on the European Council. Opposition day [11th allotted day] [second part] there will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Sale of Student Loans Bill.
	Tuesday 24 June—Opposition day [unallotted day] [first part]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion in the name of Democratic Unionist Party, subject to be announced, followed by motion to approve the draft Terrorism Act 2006 (Disapplication of Section 25) Order 2008, followed by motion to approve the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) Order 2008.
	Wednesday 25 June—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Planning Bill.
	Thursday 26 June—A general debate on the draft legislative programme.
	Friday 27 June—The House will not be sitting.
	I wish to take this opportunity to inform the House that it is my intention that the subject for the topical debate on 3 July will be Zimbabwe. It may also be helpful to Members if I inform the House that Her Majesty the Queen will open the new Session of the Parliament on Wednesday 3 December.

Theresa May: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the forthcoming business and I probably share the feelings of the entire House in thanking her for the debate on Zimbabwe. I am sorry that it is only a one-and-a-half hour topical debate, but it is good that we will be having a debate on Zimbabwe in the House.
	Last weekend, the number of troops killed in Afghanistan reached 100 and yesterday my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister to make a statement on Afghanistan. The Prime Minister said that he was willing to keep the House informed. When will we have this statement?
	Following last evening's vote to give away civil liberties, there has been much speculation about what promises the Prime Minister had to make to win. So that hon. Members might be better informed before the debate on 24 June in the name of the Democratic Unionist party, can we have a statement from the Northern Ireland Secretary on the Government's plans for expenditure in Northern Ireland?
	Talking of the Counter-Terrorism Bill, on Tuesday, Members had only three hours to discuss 16 new clauses and about 60 amendments covering crucial issues such as post-charge questioning and control orders. That has become a regular practice. Ministers tabled at a late stage 218 new amendments to the Planning Bill and the sheer number of late amendments to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill meant that major changes to the criminal law and to sentencing were not debated in the House. It is the responsibility of the right hon. Lady to manage the business of the House, but it is becoming clearer with every Bill that is mishandled that she is struggling. Will she make a statement to explain what she is doing to ensure that important issues are given proper time for debate?
	I have previously asked why the Government delayed publication of the poverty figures until after, first, the local elections and then the Crewe and Nantwich by-election. Now we know why. The number of children in poverty rose last year and the Government are even further away from meeting their child poverty target. Can we have a debate on the issue as a matter of urgency?
	On 18 March, the Minister for Women announced a £1 million emergency fund for rape crisis centres faced with closure but, four months later, no rape crisis centre under threat has received a single penny of that money. So, can we have a statement from the Minister?
	This week, the Governor of the Bank of England said that we were facing
	"the longest period of financial turmoil"
	in memory, yet the Treasury has been characterised by dithering and U-turns, not least on the 10p tax fiasco. There is little wonder that the director general of the CBI has said the Chancellor has "lost it" on tax policy. Can we have a debate, in Government time, on restoring confidence in the Treasury?
	Can we have a debate on leadership in government? Since the Prime Minister came to power, the number of working days lost to stress-related illness in the civil service has increased by almost 11,000. Unsurprisingly, one of the two Departments where less time is being lost due to stress is the Treasury, which the Prime Minster left last June. Perhaps his reputation for upsetting secretaries, throwing mobile phones at the wall and reducing his closest advisers to tears is not the best way to boost staff morale. As the only other Department where time lost due to stress fell is the Foreign Office, perhaps the Prime Minister should ask the Foreign Secretary for lessons on leadership.
	Finally, can we have a debate on management technique in government? It is today reported that, according to Downing street insiders, the Prime Minister's "Don't panic" message to motorists was deliberately designed to achieve the opposite effect and to get people to panic buy fuel. [Hon. Members: "What?"] Yes. Perhaps in Brown's Downing street army, when he, like Corporal Jones, says "Don't panic, don't panic", his Cabinet hear the words of Private Frazer—"Doomed. We're all doomed".

Harriet Harman: The right hon. Lady asked about Afghanistan, and we all express our condolences to those who have lost loved ones in the fight against the Taliban. We must remind ourselves of the progress that their heroic work has helped to secure. The Prime Minister reminded the House yesterday that only 2 million children were in school in Afghanistan when the operation started, but that the figure is 6 million now, 2 million of them girls. We need to make progress on tackling the Taliban for the sake of the people of Afghanistan and because of the threat that their terrorism poses to the world. Statements to keep the house updated will be made as and when they are appropriate. I know that the Prime Minister addresses those matters whenever they arise at Prime Minister's questions on a Wednesday.
	The shadow Leader of the House asked about yesterday's debate and vote on the Counter-Terrorism Bill. I say again that the Government's concern is for the safety of people in this country and for the protection of our civil liberties. The Bill was scrutinised by the Select Committee, there was extensive debate in the House, and now it goes to the Lords. I ask her to spare us her crocodile tears over civil liberties: we introduced the Human Rights Act 1998 against opposition from the Conservatives, who plan to abolish it. That legislation is one of the most important defences of civil liberties to have gone through the House in recent years.
	The right hon. Lady raised the question of the programming of the Counter-Terrorism Bill, and of Bills more widely. It is important not to rewrite history, so I remind her of what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing said about the programme motion. He said:
	"At the start of the process, quite properly, the usual channels asked for two days on Report rather than just one—they asked for and were given that, because of the importance of the matters covered by the Bill. Within that, they asked that one day be given over...for a full day's debate on one clause."—[ Official Report, 10 June 2008; Vol. 477, c. 172.]
	That request was also granted. There was discussion through the usual channels, and exceptional arrangements were made for a very important debate.
	As for child poverty, there has been a substantial fall in the number of children being brought up in poverty since this Government came to office in 1997. However, we are determined to step up the momentum and that is why we have introduced further measures to bring even more children out of poverty. Last Monday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families gave evidence on child poverty to the Select Committee, and next Monday the House will consider the Children and Young Persons Bill. That is a stark contrast to what happened under the Conservative Government, when there was a relentless increase in the number of children being brought up in poverty. I therefore regard the concern expressed by the right hon. Lady to be entirely phoney—as with so many of the issues that she raises.
	The shadow Leader of the House asked about rape crisis centres. It might be a good idea if I had a further discussion with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Justice and for the Home Department, after which I shall write to the right hon. Lady with an update on where we have got with the extra funds that have been made available for distribution to rape crisis centres. I shall place a copy of that letter in the House of Commons Library.
	As for the financial situation, I think that we all acknowledge that it is difficult, both in this country and internationally. We will take action at national and international level, make sure that we support the resilience of the economy and focus on what we can do to help family finances.
	The right hon. Lady made what I think was intended as a joke about fuel supply, in respect of the tanker drivers' industrial dispute. It is a serious issue and it is important to state two things. First, it is important that people do not fill their tanks more quickly than they would otherwise, thereby creating a problem of supply in petrol stations. Secondly, we express our hope that the two sides in the dispute will come together and reach an agreement swiftly.

Simon Hughes: If it is not, why not? It used to be. That may be why the Labour party is not as popular with its core supporters as it was in the past.
	On internal House business, the Leader of the House obviously has plans to put to the House proposals for Members' pay, pensions and allowances. I understood that Sir John Baker was due to report to the Government in May, although we have heard nothing of his report. May I assume that he did report in May and that the report is ready? If so, can it be published now and will the Leader of the House confirm—specifically following the comments made yesterday by the Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life—that whatever view the Members Estimate Committee comes to, an independent body of authority will confirm that it is acceptable not just to Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, but also to those who monitor the public interest outside this place, so that we are not in the embarrassing position that the House decides on something that is immediately thought inappropriate by those outside who look after standards of public life?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), like all Members, will have been in meetings with Ministers where civil servants have not been present.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether the date on which this year's debate on the Queen's Speech will be the latest ever. No, it will not be. In 2000, it took place on 6 December, so this year's date is not the latest. He also asked when the Counter-Terrorism Bill will receive Royal Assent. There are very important measures on that most important of issues, and I hope that the Bill will go through the House of Lords, return to this House and receive Royal Assent promptly. Of course, we want it to have proper scrutiny, but we also want to ensure that those important new laws are on the statute book.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about UK relations with China. There is an opportunity for him and other Members to raise further points when Foreign Office Ministers take oral questions on 24 June.
	The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of the gap between the rich and poor. Of course, we remain committed to a more equal society and to narrowing the gap between rich and poor. If he looks at our public service agreements, which embody the objectives for work that takes place throughout Departments, he will see a number of PSAs that require action throughout the Government to narrow the gap between rich and poor in relation to educational and health outcomes and to income.  [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) says, "It's not working." I just ask her to look at the relentless and growing trend of inequality between rich and poor and the growing number of poor people under the Government of whom she was a Member. I am prepared to— [Interruption.] At least the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) has been consistent on the issue. I am happy to answer his question, but I shall move swiftly on to Sir John Baker's report.
	Sir John has reported and I strongly thank him for the work that he has undertaken at the request of the House. Our resolution on 24 May asked him to look into the question of MPs pay. On the question of publication and debate, we are committed to debating the Baker report and to making decisions about an independent mechanism for reviewing pay, including a new comparator. We have made a commitment that the House will have an opportunity to debate these issues and to make decisions before the House rises for the summer recess. We are determined that the report should be published in enough time to give Members time to consider it and to propose any amendments that they would like to make to it.
	Bearing in mind, however, that we also aim to debate the report on allowances from Mr. Speaker and the Members Estimate Committee, we thought it would be convenient for the House to debate that report at the same time as the Baker review—on the same day—so that the House could deal with all the issues at once. As we would like the reports to be debated on the same day, it would also be convenient for the House if we published the MEC and Baker reports on the same day. That is our objective. It might not prove possible, but in any event, we will go ahead and publish the Baker review to ensure that Members have enough time to consider it and to produce their amendments.
	The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey asked about independent scrutiny of the Members Estimate Committee's proposals to the House. That has been the subject of much debate within the Committee—particularly among the three Committee members to whom the whole House owe much for the great deal of work that they have done. They have consulted Members, and the question is how we ensure that we have not only the right structure to pay for our offices, travel and London accommodation, but proper investigation systems, so that any misuse of those structures and any abuse of the system can be rooted out. Members have been debating that point with MEC members, and there has been discussion with the National Audit Office. The proposals will then return to the House. Once the MEC report is published, everybody, including the Committee on Standards and Privileges, will be able to look at it, and then it will come back to the House for a full debate and a decision.

David Winnick: As someone who, needless to say, is very pleased that the Labour party has been in office for 11 years, and who certainly wants to avoid the nightmare of a Tory Government, may I ask whether the Cabinet should not carefully consider whether it is wise to go ahead with the 42- days measure, knowing that the Lords will certainly reject it and that there will then be ping-pong between the two Chambers? Perhaps a statement could be made at some stage. Should not we all be united against the terrorist danger instead of having controversial and divisive measures that serve no purpose at all?

Nicholas Winterton: I thank the Leader of the House for arranging a debate on Zimbabwe, although I am a little saddened that it will come after the rerun of the presidential election in that country and that we are not able to emphasise the importance of there being a large number of election observers there to see that the election is free and fair.
	I have a question for the Leader of the House about future business. Will she produce a report for the House to consider on the processes of programming and selecting topical debates? I believe that there is a requirement on both sides of the House for those processes to be reviewed, and I hope that a review of both will be announced by the Leader of the House in the relatively near future.

Julian Lewis: I begin by thanking the Minister for advance sight of his statement and of the board of inquiry report. That is a long, detailed and thorough document which does not pull its punches. It is not surprising that it took longer than the originally anticipated four months to complete, but can the Minister explain why it has taken fully 15 months to complete, for the information not only of the House but above all for the families of those who lost their lives?
	Paragraph 15 of the report states:
	"Despite careful handling within service channels, the story broke in the media before all the next of kin had been informed and before . . . staff had been able to contact the next of kin of the remainder of Tireless's crew."
	Can the Minister throw light on how that happened, and explain to the House what safeguards have been agreed with the media on not reporting military fatalities before the families have been told, and whether such safeguards were flouted on this occasion?
	The report concludes:
	"If it had not been for the outstanding efforts of"
	the third crew member, the one who was injured,
	"the consequences of this incident may have been much worse".
	In the light of that, does the Minister wish to revise the statement by a Ministry of Defence source, reported on 22 March 2007—two days after the incident—that
	"the vessel was never in any danger"?
	Also reported early last year, soon after the incident occurred, was the tribute paid by Commander Breckenridge, the commanding officer of the submarine, to the crew member who was
	"injured by the initial blast and thrown to the deck . . . recovered himself despite his injuries, placed an emergency breathing mask on his face and, in complete darkness and zero visibility due to the smoke, extinguished the numerous small fires in the compartment and allowed access to the fire-fighting and medical teams."
	The report reveals that owing to the buckling of the bulkhead doors, it took 44 minutes before anyone was able to get into the compartment, and the conditions in which that seaman was operating can barely be imagined.
	The injured submariner who is reported to have acted so heroically has not been named in the report. I wonder why that is. Is he one of the seven submariners who have been honoured with their commander-in-chief's commendation so far? Is he to be separately honoured? If he cannot be named for security reasons, does the Minister agree that that should not prevent his bravery being appropriately rewarded?
	Turning to the self-contained oxygen generators, I understand that these have been fitted in Trafalgar class submarines since 2001. Will the Minister tell us whether they have also been fitted to the Vanguard class submarines that carry the nuclear deterrent; if so, what is the status of such SCOGs on these particularly important vessels in the Royal Navy?
	We understand that, on this occasion, the accident occurred some distance away from the nuclear reactor in the submarine, but are SCOGs fitted to other parts of the submarine that are closer to the nuclear reactor? How near was the explosion to the cruise missiles—conventionally armed cruise missiles, which are the standard main armament of Trafalgar class submarines such as HMS Tireless, and how near to other explosive hardware carried by the submarine? Are there any other combustible products deployed on Her Majesty's submarines similar to SCOGs to which similarly lax procedures as described by the Minister have applied?
	The report identifies
	"shortcomings in the acquisition, manufacture, transport, storage, stowage and logistics management of SCOGs".
	In detail, the recommendations state that
	"The existing population... should be withdrawn from service"—
	the Minister has given us an update on that—but they also draw attention to the fact that
	"MoD-approved quality control checks and acceptance processes"
	should be
	"introduced to ensure that the manufacturer supplies sodium chlorate candles that are free from contamination and physical damage."
	Will the Minister explain why those checks were not carried out previously? The report also emphasises:
	"Logistics management for the SCOG replacement must ensure that guidance is clear about when the equipment is to be designated unserviceable".
	It seems inexplicable and unacceptable that no passed sell-by date was clearly applied to these combustible products—probably with fatal consequences for the two sailors.
	The report states:
	"Sufficient approved stowages should be identified",
	which suggests that there were not enough stowages for those dangerous products in the submarines, so I would be grateful if the Minister updated us on that point. If, as I have already alluded to, the bulkhead doors jammed shut, that is really a design fault that I would not have thought could happen in a modern nuclear-powered submarine.
	Significant sections of the report have been redacted, perhaps out of consideration for the families. Is the Minister satisfied that the arrangements made for the return of the deceased to the United Kingdom were handled correctly?
	Finally, I would like to say that the tributes to the two young men have shown what outstanding personalities they were. Paul McCann, from Halesowen, was a keen sportsman with an inspirational personality, who was about to leave the service to marry his American fiancée last August. Tony Huntrod from Sunderland was a live wire with great charm and a fine sense of humour. They both join the roll of more than 5,000 submariners commemorated in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Peter Viggers). We should all be very proud of them and very grateful to them and their families.

Hilary Benn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the spirit and content of his response, with the exception of his last point. I know that he takes these matters seriously. I echo his thanks to Gordon MacKerron and to CoRWM for the work that they have done. I also pay tribute to Professor Pickard, who now chairs CoRWM in its new guise.
	The Government have not sent a confused message on new nuclear build. Indeed, we consulted on waste from new nuclear build as part of the nuclear consultation. We have said clearly that companies involved in building new nuclear will have to build up a fund to cover the costs of decommissioning and waste management, and we are going to set a fixed price, which will include a significant risk premium, to cover the costs of accepting new waste and contributing to the cost of building a geological facility. The hon. Gentleman will know that the nuclear liabilities financing assurance board will oversee the process.
	The truth is that in the past we tried an approach of scouring the country to find places. The last time it was tried, the final site identified in the mid-1990s was turned down by the inspector, and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who was then Environment Secretary, confirmed that decision. We have to find a new method that is based on winning consent. That is why I thought it sensible to write to all local authorities. It is for them to decide to come forward. I assure the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) that there will be no compromise of geological security. Indeed, once expressions of interest have come in, one of the very early stages is to screen those areas to see whether they would be suitable. As for the final decision in the process, we are minded to put that into the new planning arrangements, although the House is still in the process of considering them.
	In relation to Scotland, the Scottish Government have decided not to participate; they will continue with near-site, near-surface storage. That is entirely a matter for them. The Welsh Assembly Government support the process, but have reserved their position on whether they wish to host a facility. Any expression of interest in Wales would have to go to the Welsh Assembly Government for consideration.
	On the hon. Gentleman's point about communities that decide to come forward, I think, and I hope that the House will agree, that it is not unreasonable for those who say, "We are prepared, potentially, to host this facility on behalf of the nation," to receive support and consideration for doing that. That is the right approach. When hon. Members have had a chance to read the White Paper, they will see the very careful step-by-step approach that we are taking to win trust, build confidence and be open with information, so that communities have up until the very last minute to say, "Thanks, but no thanks." I think that is the right way to do it.

Steve Webb: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for advance sight of it.
	I want to raise four issues with the right hon. Gentleman, the first of which is safety. Ten years ago, the British Government Panel on Sustainable Development said:
	"How to dispose of radioactive waste safely in perpetuity is one of the most intractable problems currently facing industrial countries. There are major scientific and technical difficulties with permanent"
	storage underground. Ten years on, can he tell us whether those technical difficulties have been definitively resolved? If they have not—my question on plan B is slightly different from the one posed by the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth)—and there are technical and scientific difficulties that cannot be resolved, what is plan B?
	My second question relates to interim arrangements. According to the White Paper, the storage will not be available for perhaps 20 years or more, but new nuclear will be up and running before that. Is it the intention to store the waste from new nuclear on site at the new nuclear plants? Will the Secretary of State confirm that that waste will be more radioactive than the waste coming from existing plants? Should people be worried by the thought of high-level, highly radioactive waste being stored on site at lots of locations around Britain? In a terrorist age, should we be concerned about that?
	The third question relates to the spiralling cost of clean-up in respect of legacy waste. As has been said, the figures keep escalating. First, it was £56 billion and then it was £73 billion; another £10 billion here or there and soon we will be talking serious money. When will we get to the end? When will we know definitively how much the clean-up of the legacy waste will cost? We cannot keep having a few more billion added all the time. Does it worry the Secretary of State that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which is responsible for this matter, keeps losing its senior staff? What is going on at the NDA?
	My final question is about the contribution of new nuclear to the costs of the repository. The White Paper says that the repository would have to be bigger if new nuclear goes ahead, especially if big new nuclear goes ahead. Will the Secretary of State confirm unreservedly that the whole incremental costs of a larger than intended store will be fully met by the new nuclear providers?

Hilary Benn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those important and constructive questions. On safety, it is fair to acknowledge that the whole country has had the benefit of electricity produced by nuclear power for a long time. Nothing in this business is absolutely definitive, but our understanding has moved on.
	The approach of deep geological disposal is supported by the Royal Society, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Geological Society and the Royal Society of Chemistry. CoRWM looked long and hard at the matter, as he will also be aware, over two-and-a half years and it came back with the view that that is the approach to take. As I have already said to the House, it is the approach that, I think, 25 other countries are taking, including those that I listed. The right thing to do is to pursue it, because it is the way in which we are going to seek to deal with the waste. The straight answer to his question about what we will do if that approach does not work, the straight answer is that we will have to think about it then. However, this is what the whole world is doing in relation to safe storage, which is why we intend to pursue it in the way that I have set out.
	On the hon. Gentleman's second point, waste from new nuclear build will initially be stored on site—it depends on the nature of the waste and the design of the reactors. On the cost of the clear-up, the honest answer is that until one knows the size of the facility and the nature of the surrounding geology, we cannot definitively say that it will cost a considerable amount of money.
	I thought that the hon. Gentleman was slightly unfair to the NDA. I pay tribute to Ian Roxburgh, the outgoing chief executive, for his work since 2004, and I welcome the appointment of Richard Waite, who is taking over as interim chief executive. The NDA will play an important part in taking the work forward in the months and years ahead.

Andrew Miller: I remind the House that 32 years ago, Lord Flowers published the report that resulted in the original work undertaken by Nirex. Owing to an act of cowardice by the Conservative Administration, that programme was frozen and the development of an underground research laboratory was stopped. At that time, we were the world leader, but we have now slipped behind. It is vital that we push forward with a long-term solution based on the best available science, which indicates that we should create a deep repository.
	I commend to my right hon. Friend the work done in Finland, where a decision was reached among competing towns. Will he ensure that all authorities where the geology is suitable are not only properly informed at local authority level, but subject to proper community engagement, because there is a huge benefit in terms of the creation of scientific jobs?

Michael Jack: In welcoming the Secretary of State's statement, it is important that potential volunteers understand what is meant by the word "safe" in terms of a deep geological repository. Given the problems that the last so-called "safe" repository had in gaining the inspectors' approval, will he tell the House what the definition of "safe" will be? In a letter to me, the Minister for the Environment has stated that
	"there will be an accompanying process of progressive assessment of potential sites",
	which is different from the "screening process" that the Secretary of State mentioned in his statement. When will information on the progressive assessment of potential sites emerge to guide communities on whether they should volunteer?

Ian Liddell-Grainger: The Secretary of State is aware that I look after Hinkley Point nuclear power station, which is in my constituency. He is also aware that EDF Energy has bought 86 acres next to the power station and that there is a low-level waste storage plan, which has not been enacted yet, for the Hinkley Point site. He knows that the provision of deep storage will take some time, and I suspect that in his heart he would like the site to be at one of the existing nuclear facilities, as has been suggested by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). Does he see low-level waste storage facilities being bumped up to take high-level waste? Will he insist that companies such as EDF Energy build a local storage facility onsite for high-level, medium-level and low-level waste? Will he set out how he envisages places such as Bridgwater in west Somerset will negotiate and who will do the negotiation on behalf of the Government?

Hilary Benn: As the hon. Gentleman knows, arrangements are already in place to deal with low-level waste. Those arrangements are working well, and the new facility that I have discussed today is not designed to take low-level waste, apart from a small amount that cannot be disposed of, principally due to the concentration of specific radionuclides. All the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised in respect of new build would have to be considered, if a proposal were to come forward. However, the proposal is principally about storing intermediate and high-level waste in a way that allows us safely to dispose of them in the future. It is also important that we reassure people in the interim that we can, as we have been doing for 50 years, find ways of safely storing waste.

Hilary Benn: The advice that I have received is that it could be placed between 200 and 1,000 m deep. It will depend very much on the nature of the geology in the chosen site, and vaults and tunnels will be involved. The studies that have been done so far refer to the figure of 1 sq km for low-level and intermediate-level waste, and 3 sq km for high-level waste. The straight answer is that until we know the precise location, it is hard to give a definitive answer to that question. It will clearly need to be adequate to do the job.

Edward Miliband: With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement about events relating to the loss and recovery of two Joint Intelligence Committee documents.
	The Joint Intelligence Committee, which is situated in the Cabinet Office under the chairmanship of Alex Allan, provides intelligence assessments to Departments across Government. An employee working in the JIC assessment staff left two documents on an early-morning commuter train on Tuesday of this week. While the documents do not contain the names of individual sources or specific operational details, they are sensitive high-level intelligence assessments. The individual concerned informed his superiors about the loss of the documents on Wednesday morning and they called in the Metropolitan police who began an urgent investigation.
	On Wednesday afternoon, the Cabinet Office was contacted by the BBC, which told the Department that the two documents were in its possession. The nature of the documents was made clear to the BBC and it was requested that it did not broadcast the contents of the documents, and that they be returned. The original documents were handed back to the Metropolitan police on Wednesday evening. There is no evidence at this stage to suggest that our vital national security interests have been damaged or that any individuals or operations have been put at risk. However, the police investigation is continuing.
	This was a clear breach of well-established security rules that forbid the removal of documents of this kind outside secure Government premises without clear authorisation and compliance with special security procedures. These rules are a clear part of the operating procedures for handling matters of this sensitivity. All individuals on joining the assessment staff are given a formal briefing on the rules by a specially designated security officer. That formal briefing is supplemented by clear, written instructions provided to the individual, who has to sign a statement to indicate that they have read, understood and will comply at all times with the rules.
	In this case, no authorisation was sought for the removal of the documents. The official concerned has been suspended from his duties as part of a standard civil service disciplinary procedure. The chairman of the JIC, Alex Allan, has confirmed that there are clear rules and that they were not followed in this case. But in order to provide the reassurance that all necessary procedures and safeguards are in place, the Cabinet Secretary has asked Sir David Omand, former permanent secretary for security and intelligence, and former permanent secretary at the Home Office, to carry out a full investigation of the circumstances of the case.
	Given the nature of the issues, I have asked Sir David to keep the Intelligence and Security Committee, which has a particular role in security and intelligence issues, fully informed. All JIC staff have been reminded by the chairman of the JIC of the fundamental importance of following all security procedures in full, and similar steps are being taken across government for those handling sensitive, intelligence-related material.
	It is a matter of utmost concern to the Government that this breach of security has happened. We will take all steps to ensure that all individuals who work within the Joint Intelligence Committee staff observe the procedures that are necessary for security. We will continue to do everything necessary to safeguard sensitive intelligence material so that we safeguard the British national interest. I commend this statement to the House.

Don Touhig: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for coming to the House at the earliest opportunity. I think that when issues of this kind arise, Ministers ought to make themselves available to answer questions in the House. However, I am somewhat concerned about one part of my right hon. Friend's statement. He said there was "a clear breach of well-established security rules that forbid the removal of documents of this kind outside secure Government premises".
	Members of the House of Commons who serve on the Intelligence and Security Committee have to go to the Cabinet Office to read the documents there. They may not be removed. Why on earth does someone who works in the Cabinet Office need to remove documents at all?

Susan Kramer: All of us are probably appalled that we have to be here today because of a breach of security on this scale. A tribute has been paid to the BBC for its prompt response, but perhaps we also owe a tribute to the finder of the documents, who could presumably have taken them to some other less responsible parties, perhaps in return for remuneration. Thank goodness the person who laid hands on them had some good sense.
	We are all aware that this is not the only loss of information—the leader of my party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg), counted some 37 million pieces of personal data that went missing last year—but I have to say that this is on a different scale and of a different order, and perhaps we should not conflate the two issues.
	I noted the slight irony that the Department that the Government have asked to review data-handling procedures is the Cabinet Office. Looking at one's own home first may, in fact, be an appropriate step.
	I have only a few questions to add to those that have already been asked. It is, perhaps, possible to be almost too glibly certain that the documents never passed into the wrong hands, and I hope those conducting the investigation will consider that carefully rather than dismissing what happened as being simply chance and accident. Although I think we all overwhelmingly believe that that is what it must have been, any other possibility should not be ruled out at this early stage, and I ask for this possibility not to be mentally dismissed or treated in a trivial way.
	Both the BBC and  The Guardian have reported that, under strict procedures—the Minister mentioned some of them—officials can take secret documents out. Perhaps we need to know a little more about what those procedures are in order to have an idea of whether or not they made sense in this case. A mere locked box, for example, does not seem terribly appropriate.
	The main question that I want to ask, however, is this: to what extent are the procedures fine while the culture is not? A much more casual culture can easily develop, in which someone dumps the contents of an in-tray into a briefcase to read or to work on at home, having lost the sense that certain key documents carry real importance and real concern. At that point, even if all the procedures are in place, if the culture has led to the loss of that sense—and I doubt that this was a one-off: the loss may have been, but I bet the taking home was not—a much more fundamental problem exists, which must be examined.
	Let me pick up something that was said by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude). I am anxious that this episode should not become a slur on the civil service as a whole. Presumably, it involved someone who made an error or did something wrong at a—

Mark Pritchard: I was very disappointed by the remarks made by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood); he did himself a disservice. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham has gone on record praising this nation's security services, so we should let the record stand.
	Is the Minister completely confident that the BBC or the passenger did not take further copies of these documents? Given the Government's shambolic record on data security and managing risk, is it not time that they perhaps tried to manage reward and give incentives for people who return Government property? I am thinking of things such as the 1,000 laptops that have gone missing in recent years.

Jonathan R Shaw: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of dangerous dogs.
	This is a very opportune moment to have a debate on dangerous dogs. I know many people feel strongly about this issue and my colleague in the other place who leads for the Government on dangerous dogs just last week gave a speech to a very well attended RSPCA conference on the issue. Therefore it may be useful if I set out at the start of the debate the Government's position on dangerous dogs and dangerous dogs legislation.
	I know that some hon. Members feel that we need new a dangerous dogs law, because the current law is ineffective and flawed. We disagree. I am aware from the letters we receive that parents have concerns about their children being attacked by dogs, and those whose work involves them going on to private premises, such as postal workers, also have concerns about the current powers available.
	Several hon. Members are calling for a review of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. I assure the House that the Government are well ahead of the game here. In the aftermath of the shocking death of Ellie Lawrenson in January 2007, my Department conducted a detailed review of the dangerous dogs legislation. We wrote to police forces in England and Wales at the beginning of last year to ascertain whether there were problems with the law and to judge how it was enforced. We then discussed the results of this consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers. Members may be interested to know that a summary of the responses received from the police has been placed in the Library.
	The outcome of the review has guided the Government's policy in this area. The three main findings were that there are sufficiently robust yet proportionate powers within current legislation to tackle irresponsible dog ownership, including incidences in which a dog is being used as a weapon; that the police have not been making full use of the powers within the legislation and that enforcement around the country was patchy; and finally that Parliament was absolutely right to prohibit the ownership of pit bull terriers.
	Our view is that the legislation now in place is robust and that new legislation is not the answer. Certainly over the past few months, we have heard a number of suggestions as to how we can change the law. We have considered these changes. They seem to range from either highly disproportionate responses to the problem or ones that would make the situation worse. One much publicised suggestion has been for a dog ownership test. That would involve setting up an executive agency—a doggie DVLA, perhaps—to run a licensing scheme for dog owners. All owners would need to pass a test before getting a licence. Other possibilities include licensing all male un-neutered dogs under a revised Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 and the introduction of a watertight dog registration system that would have all the necessary veterinarian/dog behaviourist checks to ensure that those who registered did not register dangerous dogs.

Jonathan R Shaw: I regret that I do not recall the hon. Gentleman's Adjournment debate. I was in the Whips' Office at the time, and Adjournment debates are not necessarily the focus of the Whips' attention, as they tend to focus on votes in the House. He makes a fair point, and I hope to show that we have been through a process, in which we have talked to all the relevant agencies involved, including councils in London, the RSPCA and the police, about how we can enforce the legislation better.

Martin Linton: On Staffordshire bull terriers, does the hon. Gentleman agree that they make good family pets and that there is no reason to discriminate against the breed? Does he disagree with the suggestion from the leader of my local council in Wandsworth that a £500 dog licence should be applied to specific breeds, namely Staffordshire bull terriers?

Angela Watkinson: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating all the organisations that rehome dogs that have been abandoned or need to find a new family for various reasons? They go to enormous lengths to ensure that the new homes are suitable, and they make follow-up visits to ensure that a dog has settled in properly and that the new relationship is successful.

Andrew Rosindell: I certainly commend those organisations as they do a splendid job. There are many of them around the country, with volunteers making use of private donations to look after the welfare of dogs and rehome them in happy family environments. I have worked closely with organisations that rehome greyhounds, something that I know that my hon. Friend is especially interested in.
	The Minister will be aware of the danger posed to the public by dogs whose mental and physical welfare is not catered for by their irresponsible owners. The alarming increase in the number of dogs being bred for antisocial and aggressive purposes such as fighting is deeply worrying. With greater sophistication and more investment being channelled into the breeding of aggressive dogs, we have more dangerous dogs in this country than ever before. They are bred primarily in deprived urban areas and are often insufficiently restrained by their uncaring owners. As a result, an alarmingly large proportion of the public—notably children—is at risk of attack, and the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 has failed to prevent the existence of dogs belonging to what are described as "dangerous breeds". It has certainly not led to a decrease in attacks: nearly 4,000 people received treatment for bites or dog-related wounds last year, twice as many as four years ago.
	The police have spent an enormous amount of time and valuable resources in attempting to enforce the law, but to what effect? The Dangerous Dogs Act has also had a detrimental impact on the welfare of those dogs that have been kept in kennels, in some cases for many years, or euthanized simply because of their breed or type. There have been countless cases since 1991 of dogs that have been held in police kennels for long periods. That costs large sums of money and causes huge stress to the animal and heartache to the owners—often when the dog has shown no signs of aggression whatsoever. How the police handle situations involving dogs must also be reviewed and tightened up, as all of us, including the police, have a duty of care under the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
	The law should allow the police to focus their resources where they are needed most and where they will be put to best use in protecting the public. We need to question whether the current "breed-specific" legislation really is the best way of doing that. The police and local authorities might be more effective if they were able to target cruel and irresponsible owners, regardless of the breed of dog involved.
	As the shadow Minister with responsibility for animal welfare, I have been liaising closely with the Kennel Club's Dangerous Dogs Act study group, which represents animal welfare organisations, local authorities, police and veterinary professionals. There is a consensus that the 1991 Act needs to be reviewed, and I can tell the House today that that is precisely what the next Conservative Government will do.
	We will study all the evidence on how best we can protect the public from dog attacks and how police resources can be used in the most effective way, while at the same time ensuring that the welfare of the animal is fully taken into account. Policy must be developed that addresses the danger posed by certain dogs to the wider community but that at the same time reasserts the enforcement of the law in emphasising that a dog's mental and physical welfare is the owner's responsibility.
	Owners must retain the principal control of and responsibility for their dogs, but there should be no interference from new regulations: the experience of owning a dog must remain liberating and rewarding. There is a clear need to shift the focus of the available penalties towards dogs' specific actions and the failure by owners to act responsibly, and away from penalising the ownership of certain breeds as a whole. That approach is generally accepted by all dog organisations as a much more effective way forward.
	It is unfair to penalise a small minority of dogs solely because of their breeding history: all dogs can attack when trained to do so, just as all breeds can produce friendly, good natured dogs when the animals are trained responsibly. Consideration should also be given to opening the index of exempted dogs to allow owner-led applications, as that would give owners a chance to prove that their dogs do not pose a danger to the public. In cases where illegal dogs are successfully registered and proved to be safe, their welfare will have been maintained, with the result that they will not be seized and placed in police kennels unnecessarily. The police would then have more freedom to focus their resources on real cases involving irresponsible dog owners and dogs that pose a genuine a danger to the public.
	In summary, we must implement the "deed not the breed" principle, and the support and protection of responsible owners must also be addressed. We should retain the offences connected with serious aggression, and their potentially severe penalties, but safeguards must also be introduced for owners so that they can prove that their dog was provoked into being aggressive. Owners should also be able to prove that their dog attacked in self-defence or as a means of preventing a physical assault on its owner.
	The issue of dangerous dogs seems to have eluded many local authorities across the country, despite the growth in frequency and severity of reported incidents. I want the subject to be made a priority for local authorities and police forces, so that the harsh penalties available for dealing with crimes of this nature are communicated successfully to people. Resources need to be invested in opposing the so-called "sport" of dog fighting. Public awareness of the problem needs to be raised and a widespread clampdown encouraged. As with many other crimes, only by focusing on prevention and asking for public as well as police-driven help can we properly attack the root causes.
	The issue of dangerous dogs ties in very closely to another growing concern—that of stolen and stray dogs. Dogs are often stolen for the purpose of fighting, and stray dogs can indeed become dangerous when left to fend for themselves.

Ian Cawsey: I congratulate the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) on his debut on the Front Bench. He is a good supporter of dogs, for which he was known even before he entered the House. I am pleased that he has been given a position to which he will bring much experience for the benefit of other Members and the House.
	I begin with a declaration of interest—before the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) tells me I have not made one. I am a vice-president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, an honorary member of the British Veterinary Association, a trustee of the Jerry Green dog rescue trust and the proud owner of Ben, a very elderly but loveable Labrador, and China, a rescued ex-hare coursing lurcher—both of whom have their own page on my website, which is often more popular than I am.
	I welcome the debate, which has been a long time coming. For seven years, I have had the great honour of chairing the all-party group on animal welfare. I have worked with colleagues on both sides of the House and with animal welfare groups on all aspects of the topic, which has come up time and again over the years.
	Early in his speech, my hon. Friend the Minister said that in his and the Government's view there was no need for new legislation. Perhaps we might return to that point later. I attach no blame to the Government who introduced the 1991 Act, because, as Members may recall, a number of horrendous incidents had occurred in quick succession and there was much pressure for the then Government to act. I am the first to accept that the Dangerous Dogs Act was introduced with the best of intentions, but I am not certain about its outcome. With the clarity of hindsight, which of course we all wish we could have at the time, I am not convinced that the Act has had the effect that many of us in the dog and animal welfare world hoped it would.
	The Act seems to have many shortcomings that need to be redressed. It is retrospective in nature, and although there will obviously always be a clamour to take action when an incident has occurred, we would all prefer an intervention to stop a dog becoming dangerous. There is nothing in the law that helps in that regard. Section 3 can be applied only in certain circumstances—when a dog is in a public place or in a private place where it is not permitted. In other words, if a person owns some land and has a dog that they may be making dangerous, through breeding and training, for all sorts of bad purposes, such as dog fighting, they cannot be prosecuted under section 3, because the animal is on their land. That seems to be a big hole in the legislation.
	The law applies only when the dog acts dangerously towards people. However, if we want to reach a situation where we intervene before such incidents happen, we need to do much more. The hon. Member for Romford used the phrase, "deeds not breeds", and those of us involved in these things hear that over and over again. We need to give that idea further thought.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Dangerous Dogs Act study group, which includes the Battersea dogs home, the Blue Cross, the British Veterinary Association, the Dogs Trust, the Kennel Club, the Metropolitan police, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the RSPCA, Wandsworth borough council and Wood Green animal shelters. That is an impressive group of people, who know what they are talking about. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will be talking to them, but I hope he listens to them, too. Although I realise that was not the hon. Gentleman's intention, in what he said about the study group there was almost an implication that it was briefing only the Conservative party on these matters. Having chaired the all-party group for several years, I know that all members of the group are extremely forthcoming in advising all politicians on animal welfare matters. If any hon. Members want further information they will find that the group is a good one with which to hold discussions. I am grateful for all the effort that the group has put in and for the briefings it has given me and others.
	As has been said, we need to try to intervene to help owners. Most people do not want to have a dangerous dog. Sometimes, they do not have the necessary expertise or skills to handle the dog, and sometimes they do not understand what they are taking on. This might be too much of an animal pun, but it has always been a bit of a hobby horse of mine that we should involve younger people in animal welfare and responsibilities for animal care, which relate to wider issues than just dogs. Animal welfare should be part of citizenship education in schools. I realise that the school curriculum is burdened with all sorts of things, and I do not mean for a second that animal welfare should be a huge part of it, but as all schools are required to cover citizenship, something about the responsibilities involved in keeping animals would be welcome. People often take on an animal without being aware of the extent of the commitment.
	When organisations sell animals—or, in some cases, simply hand them over—it is important that they make adequate checks that the people taking the animal are responsible, have the right facilities to care for it and know what its needs are. Even in the dog world, there are huge variations in the needs of different breeds, and people need information about that. Most kennels act responsibly; they have to be licensed, so I hope that requirements on checking are part of the licensing and registration process.
	Members with good memories will recall that a few years ago, I promoted a private Members' Bill to try to ensure that rescue centres and sanctuaries were covered by the laws that apply to kennels. I am a trustee of a rescue centre and although there is no requirement for us to abide by those provisions, we do so because we are a good trust. I am pleased that the provisions of my Bill were picked up—albeit many years later—in the Animal Welfare Act 2006, but one of the most frustrating things is waiting for secondary legislation to implement the measure. I understand why it was decided that not everything in the 2006 Act could be done straight away and that its provisions would be phased in, but ensuring that those who hand over dogs do the right thing is an important element if we want responsible dog ownership.
	Recently published statistics show worrying growth in the number of dog fights. There has also been an increase in the number of trophy dogs, owned by people who parade in a macho way around their estates or town centres with a big muscular dog straining at the bit. That is a worrying trend and it is important that we have strategies to deal with it. The Minister may comment later on whether we need legislation, but something needs to be done.
	Dogs are stolen, sometimes for various reasons to do with the breed, and sometimes for people who are involved in dog fighting. A dog was stolen a few months ago from Jerry Green's head sanctuary, which is based in my constituency. It is a sanctuary, so it wants people to have its dogs. There really is no need to break in at night and take them, so the people who do break in probably do so for two reasons: first, because they want a particular dog—we suspect that in that case, the dog was going to be used for fighting—and secondly, because those people know that they will not get through the sanctuary's vetting procedures. In other words, we would not have allowed them to have a dog, so they broke in and took some away. Again, the Government must take action on dog theft.
	I praise Dog Theft Action, an organisation that a number of hon. Members will know about. It does some excellent work trying to spread good practice, to trace dogs and to help people who have lost their dogs. I mention in particular Maggie Nawlockyi—I can already see the  Hansard scribe writing a little note to me about how to spell that. She is one of my constituents, and she has done an excellent job of raising the profile of dog theft. It is a big problem that sometimes involves dangerous dogs and dogs that will be used in fighting. We need to do more about it.
	On what can be done to improve the situation, the Government must decide whether legislation is required, but more action must be taken to help when dangerous dogs cause problems in communities. There is a lot of call for something similar to an improvement notice, which is already a part of the 2006 Act and could be used in such circumstances. I go back to my original point: most dog owners—most animal owners—do not intend to have a dangerous or difficult animal; the problem arises because they do not know enough about what they are doing, or they did not look into the situation enough before they took a dog on.
	Many Members have probably experienced going out with an RSPCA inspector and spending a day doing what they do. I remember going out in Hull with an inspector, and we called at a dog owner's house because there had been a report, not of a dangerous dog, but of a dog that had not been adequately cared for. I found the situation striking, because when the RSPCA inspector turned up, all uniformed and all the rest, they found an elderly couple who owned the dog. The couple were petrified by that uniformed person knocking at the door and coming in, and they were fearful that the RSPCA were just going to take the dog away. In fact, they just required some help and support. They wanted to look after the dog; they just did not know what to do. The RSPCA wrote out an improvement notice, gave them some guidance and advice and then monitored the situation until the inspectors were happy that the dog was being adequately cared for.

Angela Watkinson: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that in some circumstances, the RSPCA does not have enough powers when it finds an animal in a state of neglect and the owners unresponsive to its advice? The animal has to be in a very bad state or injured before the RSPCA has the power to remove it. Sometimes, even with repeated visits, the owners do not respond to the good advice that they receive.

Martin Horwood: I declare myself to be a dog lover and the president of the Cheltenham branch of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The situation that we face seems grim. The statistics obtained by my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) show a dramatic rise in hospitalisation resulting from dog bites. In 2002, there were fewer than 3,000 such incidents, but in 2006-07 there were 3,787. The rise in my strategic health authority area in the south-west is even greater: the number of such incidents there has gone up by 53 per cent. in those four years.
	The RSPCA statistics on calls relating to dog fighting are also dramatic. In 2004, the organisation had 24 such calls. By 2006, the number had risen to 137 and in 2007, the organisation received a staggering 358 calls specifically about dog fighting. Behind those statistics lie some terrifying individual examples, some from my constituency. When I visited Cheltenham Animal Shelter last year, I saw an American pit bull-type dog called Benny. One of the problems with the 1991 Act is that the breeds are often difficult to identify precisely. That dog had attacked a series of other dogs and had left a number of them—possibly as many as four—dead. It had then attacked and badly bitten an owner who had tried to defend his own pet. It proved rather difficult to identify the owner of the dog that attacked the others, but the animal was retained as evidence by the Cheltenham Animal Shelter, apparently while still alive, but it said that if the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to prosecute because the case was not strong enough, or if the prosecution failed, the dog would have to go back to the apparent owner, even though the experts at the animal shelter were quite convinced that it was a threat to other animals and to human beings.
	There was an even more widely publicised case in Cheltenham involving Alfie, an American bulldog cross; again, that is not one of the breeds specified in the Act. The dog was being set on passers-by by people who may or may not have been its owner. It finally hospitalised my constituent, Martin Merenko. The dog was shot, but it had already paid three visits to the Cheltenham Animal Shelter, which was unable to retain the dog because it did not have the power not to return the dog to the owner, as the dog had not, at the time in question, done the requisite amount of damage. However, the animal shelter staff could tell, as experts, that the dog's behaviour was such that it was a danger.
	As an hon. Member has said, the problem is not just the most extreme cases, but those lower-level incidents that are warning signs and precursors to other attacks. My constituent Derrick Pepperell had to defend his terrified four-year-old granddaughter, Emily, from three fighting dogs in Hatherley park in my constituency. Again, apparently no action could be taken in that case. That was obviously a warning sign that something more dangerous might happen in future. My constituent Sharon Martin wrote to me about her dog being repeatedly attacked. The animal responsible had not at that stage attacked a human being. She said:
	"My dog was not the only dog that day to be attacked by the same vicious dog. No-one is coming forward to claim this animal and I have now been told by the police (after many phone calls) that the animal will be destroyed...But there are still more of these animals out there. I see them every day. I alone have paid a £400 vet's bill, I dread to think of the other owners' bills. I want to know what you intend to do about these dangerous dogs."
	When I questioned the police about that case, they told me that their practical notes said that
	"In a statement of complaint,"
	which is apparently what the case was,
	"the victim must identify the dog. It is usually necessary for the victim to then identify the dog in the presence of the owner and the investigating officer."
	That is not in the realm of reality.
	We need drastic reform of the dangerous dogs legislation, and as the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), the RSPCA and the Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare have rightly said, a key factor must be shifting the emphasis from the breed—there is a rather obscure list of breeds that many people have never seen—to the deed. I would take the advice of the Cheltenham Animal Shelter and the RSPCA a step further and reintroduce dog licensing, based on a self-financing microchip scheme.

Martin Horwood: I am very grateful for the Minister's comments, and I will pass on the details. The problem with the list is not that it is difficult to identify which dogs are on it, including the Japanese Tosa and the Dogo Argentino, but that in many cases people have never seen those dogs in their areas. Most of the damage is done by cross-breeds and other such animals that are quite difficult to identify, hence the need to emphasise dangerous behaviour, and to empower local agencies, such as local councils, the police and the Cheltenham Animal Shelter, to impound dogs that exhibit behaviour that they know will cause those animals to be a threat to individuals and other animals. Local bodies must be given that power.
	As I say, we should move to a self-financing microchip licensing scheme. The Minister expressed doubt about the cost of that. The Dogs Trust administers a scheme for, I think, £10 a dog. Even if a national scheme charged three times that, £30 is still an affordable cost for dog owners. In fact, if a dog owner cannot afford £30 for a licence, how could they possibly afford to keep and feed a dog of the kind that we are discussing? We face a terrifying rise in injuries and incidents, and that rise must be stopped. The hon. Member for Romford suggested that wait for a Conservative Government to take action, but I suspect that that might be some time coming. If this Government were to take drastic action, we would certainly support them.

Martin Linton: It may seem a strange reflection that hon. Members would not have to go far from the House to find places where dog fighting is a problem. I could take them to an estate within a mile and a half of the House, where I get constant complaints about the use of dogs for dog fighting, crime and intimidation. Residents on such estates queue up to sign my petition against dangerous dog owners, urging greater use of antisocial behaviour orders and enforcement of tenancy conditions to control the problem.
	I have tabled an early-day motion, which I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister has seen, which deals with measures that the Government can still take. Although I praise many of the steps already taken, I still urge my hon. Friend to consider further measures. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) mentioned control orders for dogs to be destroyed, controlled, muzzled or re-homed, which are important, but I draw his attention to proposals for the compulsory microchipping of dogs, for a minimum age for dog ownership, and for powers to disqualify owners from having charge of a dog.
	I agree with my hon. Friend that the reintroduction of dog licences would be ineffective unless it was backed up with enormous resources. I would be as sceptical as he and other hon. Members are about any proposal for further breed-specific legislation. The 1991 Act has already thrown up enough problems without our legislating further against other breeds. That is why I do not agree with the leader of my local council in Wandsworth, as I mentioned, when he suggested a £500 licence fee for owners of particular breeds, such as Staffordshire bull terriers. I think he mentioned four breeds.
	It would be wrong to penalise the owners of those breeds in that way, and in any case it would be the responsible owners of Staffordshire bull terriers—I am sure that would include the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell)—who would pay the licence, and the irresponsible owners, of whom one has to admit there are quite a few, would try to get away without paying.
	The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) mentioned microchipping. That is already automatic for organisations such as the Battersea Dogs and Cats Home in my constituency, and it is routine practice for vets. I am sure it is strongly encouraged by the Government in their guidelines, which I understand are due out later this summer. The next logical step is to make microchipping compulsory. I realise that that could be described as a form of licensing, because the microchip would contain information about the dog's home and owner, but it is a practical measure that does not involve the amount of paperwork that was necessary with the old licensing system or the kind of paperwork that was mentioned.
	Microchipping would make everybody's job much easier—the police, the RSPCA, the dogs home, the dog wardens. All of them would benefit greatly from being able to identify a dog's owner and locate its home instantly. The charge often made for microchipping is £25, and it would be a hugely popular and practical move. I believe Wandsworth council is already considering making microchipping of dogs a condition of council tenancy agreements.

Martin Linton: If microchipping were made compulsory, it would have to be introduced gradually. It would apply to new pets to start with, and consideration would have to be given to the cost. Not every dog owner could be guaranteed to be able to afford it. The microchip itself costs only a couple of pounds, so the Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and other refuges could help those who could not afford it themselves.

Martin Linton: Indeed, it costs several pounds a week to keep a dog, but I do not see cost as something that precludes progress on microchipping.
	Having a minimum age for dog ownership in a sense presupposes a licensing system because it means that every dog has to have a named owner who is above that stated age. Dog control units say that the major problem nowadays is with dog owners aged about 13 to 17—teenagers who, because they cannot have a gun or a knife without running the risk of enormous sentences, have an aggressive dog as the next best weapon. In some respects, a dog may be an even better weapon to use to intimidate, threaten and frighten people. I realise that a minimum age of 18 would, however, prevent parents from giving their child a puppy of their own to look after, which can be a very educative experience for a child. Of course, children who own a dog never really take full responsibility for it, so I would have thought that the law should recognise that dog ownership carries with it certain responsibilities that can be borne only by an adult. Having powers to disqualify owners from having charge of a dog obviously requires a legal owner, but legal ownership could be determined simply by the microchip in the dog rather than by some expensive national register.
	I would like to pay tribute to the work of the Dangerous Dogs Act study group, which the Minister mentioned. It has produced some detailed proposals, which I hope he will consider carefully, because that serious and responsible group has sought the common ground between the interests of dog owners and the public and put forward proposals that respect the concerns of both. The group has rightly pointed out the flaws in breed-specific legislation, but has not called for the repeal of the Dangerous Dogs Act, which I think would be a mistake. Although it does not support a return to licensing, it supports the creation of a database containing the details of those owners found to be in breach of the Act.
	As I say, the Government deserve enormous credit for the many measures they have introduced that have had an impact on dangerous dogs. Antisocial behaviour orders, which have proved to be a very useful weapon to deal with dangerous dogs, are a case in point. Safer neighbourhoods teams—a constant presence on estates—can also play a useful role. Under the powers introduced in the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 dog control orders can be issued to put dogs on leads, dogs are prohibited from certain areas such as playgrounds and owners who do not pick up dog mess may be penalised. It also restricts the number of dogs in any particular area.
	Concern about dangerous dogs is exceeded by only one other issue in my area—that of dogs' mess, which can in its own way be dangerous to children. Of course, the 2005 Act allows the issuing of an £80 fixed penalty notice—my local authority is currently considering it—for any breaches of its terms. A fixed penalty notice cannot be fixed on a windscreen and it must be served on the owner—I do not know exactly how the scheme works. The really important issue, identified by the Minister in his opening remarks, is enforcement. New legislation has a part to play, but most of the problem relates to enforcement.
	Wandsworth has a dog control unit of six—one of the largest in the country. I pay tribute to Mark Callis, the senior dog control officer who is also a member of study group that I mentioned, on doing such a good job. It is one of the bigger units in the country, but six people in a borough of 300,000 is a drop in the ocean. We must either expand those units or find another means of enforcement.

Martin Linton: Indeed. My point is that even though Wandsworth has one of the larger dog control units, it cannot check on all the dog problems in a borough of our size. The constant complaint that I hear is that people never see the dog control unit. This is not a criticism of the dog control unit at all, but it is, by its nature, very thinly spread.
	We need to think more carefully about the role of other enforcement agencies in dealing with the problem. Safer neighbourhood teams have powers to deal with cycling on pavements, litter and fly-tipping, so perhaps they should play a bigger role, through the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, in enforcing the legislation, as it is impractical to expect dog control units, unless they were much bigger, to do so.
	In conclusion, the trend in the past few years has been towards dogs being used for intimidation and crime by quite young, inexperienced dog owners who, because of their inexperience, sometimes let their dogs become quite aggressive and uncontrollable. It is sometimes said that dogs have become a fashion accessory. I fear that they will become a crime accessory and used more and more aggressively as weapons of intimidation, which will lead to public opprobrium on dogs and dog ownership in general and people calling for much more draconian legislation. Some further changes in the law, in the same direction in which the Government have already moved, would help to deal with the problem. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider those points.

David Amess: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) on his debut at the Dispatch Box. In every sense, he was a howling success.
	We are supposed to be a nation of animal lovers. It can be argued that, in comparison with some other countries, we treat our animals in a civilised way. Perhaps hon. Members will correct me, but we do not eat dogs in this country—I have never been in a restaurant that served dog. The dog, of all animals, is held dearly in the hearts of everyone. As my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) said, for many people, their dogs are their lives.
	Like my hon. Friend and others in the Chamber, I have a dog—a black Labrador called Michael. It was given to our family by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and came from the home of Rab Butler's son, so in every sense our black Labrador is a true pedigree. That said, Michael probably qualifies as the laziest dog in the world. However, he triumphed this year at the Westminster dog of the year show, winning two prizes—the reason he got two prizes was that I threatened the judges, but I shall not go into detail.
	While I am talking about medals, I hope that the Minister will privately send me a note saying when the Land Army girls will receive their medals. I thought that it would happen in June or July, but I have not yet received a note from his office.
	I very much agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey). He is not only a consistent champion of animals, but a distinguished member of MP4, whom I and others had the opportunity of enjoying a few weeks ago.
	I have listened carefully to the criticisms of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Mr. Deputy Speaker and I are probably the only hon. Members present who were in the House when it was introduced. I remember it clearly, and— [ Interruption. ] I do apologise; I did not see my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), a fellow member of the 1983 intake. He was certainly in the House in 1991, too. The noble Lord Baker of Dorking did the right thing at the time, because there was tremendous public pressure for legislation. Seventeen years on, I would be the first to admit that perhaps we need to look at the legislation again.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) said clearly and as the Minister knows, the problem is not with dogs but with their owners. As Members of Parliament, we are only too well aware of the problems of life today; what we need are solutions. As I gently said to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford, the proposals are splendid, but I am slightly concerned about how we will deliver them in practice.

Paul Truswell: All Members appreciate that it is always difficult to legislate on the basis of high-profile and emotive cases. But the concern of our constituents—and certainly mine—is the huge increase, to which previous speakers have referred, in the number of incidents, not just the high-profile cases.

David Amess: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who makes an excellent point. I hope that something comes out of the debate, because, as he said, the danger posed by dogs whose physical and mental well-being is not cared for by their owners is seriously underestimated.
	As someone who takes dogs for a walk—it is the most gregarious activity that I know of—I am appalled by those owners who let their dogs off the lead knowing full well that it is likely to have a go at another dog. Time after time, the owners who are not responsible let the majority of responsible dog owners down.
	More dogs are being bred in deprived urban conditions, which is leading to an increased threat of attack. I am advised that the number of dog attacks requiring medical treatment has doubled to 4,000 over the past four years. That is a huge number. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford wants a deed-not-breed policy, which I certainly agree with. I also agree that legislation should address the danger posed by certain dogs, but with the emphasis on their physical and mental well-being as the key, the responsibility for which should be placed squarely on the dog owner.
	I end with a few positive thoughts. Like the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey), I hope that we do not lose the legislation; there must be a window of opportunity somewhere to amend it. We should consider the aggravating element in attack cases by examining the breeding conditions and welfare provided by the owner. We should reduce unnecessary red tape in the 1991 Act, because it does contain a lot of it. We might have to convince the Minister of this, but we should open the index of exempted dogs to owner-led applications to prove that the dog is not dangerous. That would address the problem of dogs being bred for antisocial reasons and secure more prosecutions against irresponsible owners. We should also elevate the priority that local authorities and the police give to dealing with dangerous dogs and clamp down more vigorously on the terrible sport of dog fighting.
	Finally, I and other hon. Members had the joy of meeting Bruce Forsyth in the Pugin Room recently, together with his daughter Debbie Matthews, who works for an organisation called Vets Get Scanning. I hope that at some stage we can have a meeting in the House with Bruce Forsyth and his daughter and that they will convince us of the value of Vets Get Scanning.
	I join others in saying that the debate is welcome. I am putting a heavy responsibility on the Minister, who will be, as we all are, judged by his deeds, to ensure that something positive comes out of it.

Greg Hands: I want to talk about two aspects. The first is dog fighting. The second is some of the success that Hammersmith and Fulham council is having in combating dangerous dogs in general. I have already referred to an Adjournment debate that I had last May on dog fighting. At that time, Hammersmith and Fulham faced a crisis given the amount of dog fighting and ancillary activity that was going on in the borough.
	The phenomenon has been around in London for a long time. It probably peaked about a year ago in my borough and came on to my radar screen about three years ago. It first arose from a chance encounter with the chairwoman of the Clem Attlee, Maton and Rocque tenants association, which represents one of the largest estates in Fulham, who mentioned the problem to me. At first, I was surprised and genuinely taken aback that this mediaeval practice could be going on in what is not one of the poorest London boroughs.
	I was told about pre-arranged dog fights on the Clem Attlee sports pitch. It struck me as being extremely strange and dangerous. Not only did it take out of action a precious community facility that is much needed on the estate, but it created a danger to both humans and dogs. As it turns out, the dog fights turned out to be relatively rare, but an awful lot of behaviour connected with dog fighting causes enormous difficulties in local communities. The problem was not only organised fights on the sports pitch, but intimidating activity before fights, which involved dogs being lined up inside and outside the pitch area to snarl at each other and to prospect for a fight in the future.
	At first, I thought that the problem might be a one-off that was restricted to the Clem Attlee estate, but following further research I found that it was happening in various places across Hammersmith, including the White City estate, the William Church estate and De Palma court. Partly due to the good work of Hammersmith and Fulham federation of tenants and residents association, I also found out about a couple of dog-breeding factories in my constituency, one of which was discovered in Adam walk and the other in Flora gardens.
	A lot of criminality and unpleasant behaviour surrounds dog fights—for example, gambling takes place. Sometimes the dogs are traded, and they can fetch between £1,000 and £2,000 on the secondary market. Many of the fights are recorded, which is the canine equivalent of happy-slapping, and the DVDs and videos are sold around the place.
	The training of dogs for fighting causes grave damage to community facilities. Such dogs are generally trained in parks and woodland, and one practice involves hanging a dog from a tree in a effort to strengthen its jaws for fighting. If one went to Wormwood Scrubs, or even to Ravenscourt park in Hammersmith, a year ago, one would have found a lot of damaged trees that had been used for training dogs. Dogs were even hung from the horizontal crossbar of children's swings. I am no expert on play equipment, but I imagine that that can only have done harm to play equipment in addition to its being an extremely intimidating activity for anybody using it. Furthermore, the practice is extremely harmful to the psychological and physical well-being of the dog.
	Fortunately, Hammersmith and Fulham council introduced a full set of dog control orders last year, and I have been told that they have been extremely effective. Our council takes the phenomena surrounding antisocial behaviour extremely seriously, and, as with almost everything else involving the council, things have improved enormously in the past two years.

Tony Lloyd: I cannot, of course, speak on behalf of Westminster or Lambeth councils—I am not quite sure where in relation to the dividing line between them on the bridge these rogue traders operate—but the power does exist across London. The hon. Gentleman is assiduous in putting forward his points of view, so I am sure he could raise this matter with the Westminsters and the Lambeths in order to make sure they use the powers they have. I join with him, however, in saying that the powers should be used—and Manchester, Leeds, Canterbury, Bournemouth and others want these powers under the street trading legislation.
	The second change in terms of normal street trading would be the issuing of fixed penalty notices. They have been found to be useful to prevent acts such as littering. That is a relatively light penalty in the grand scheme of things: it does not revoke licences, but it does allow the local authority to have the control to prevent unnecessary public nuisance and to bring to the attention of traders the need to conform properly to their wider social duties.
	The final significant change in terms of street trading licences is the extension of the current definition of simply "goods" to "goods or services". In my city, an issue has arisen to do with the provision of services such as teeth whitening. Many people think that, regardless of whether the provision of teeth-whitening services on the streets is desirable, that ought to come under the same form of regulation as the sale of goods such as wristwatches on the streets. Bringing in parallel provision for services and goods is a simple and necessary step, and I hope that there is agreement on it.

Tony Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, which partly answers the question asked by one of his colleagues a few moments ago. The real issue is not why so few or so many councils want this power; it is that where councils want and need this power, there is great sense in ensuring that it is available. That is what we are debating today, and I am delighted that this clearly is not a party political debate—it is a debate that joins together Members from across the Chamber.

Tony Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is right. and that is the nub of the problem. Let us accept happily that many pedlars operate in a way of which we would all approve. However, there are those who abuse the pedlars licence in various ways, such as by their trading methods or by selling items of dubious value. The innocent customer may be unable to obtain redress in the event of product or service failure, because the pedlar is long gone by the time the product is found to be defective. Sometimes, as in my city and, obviously, in Canterbury, the individual's behaviour is assertive or aggressive—or the collective behaviour of a group of pedlars leads to the same level of social deterioration. In any case, it is difficult to enforce any sanction under the present legislation.
	The police do not see this as a priority. In my city, they are quite busy with a number of other issues. It is more appropriate that it should be for the local authority to enforce the legislation through other means, but they need the power to do so—

Tony Lloyd: It is not really a question of revoking pedlars licences. The point has been made several times, but I will repeat it for the hon. Gentleman's consideration. It actually does not matter how many pedlars licences are issued by the Greater Manchester police, because the people who peddle in Manchester may come from Dorset, Devon or Northumberland. A pedlars licence is national, which is one of the difficulties, because although it is necessary for street traders to be licensed locally, a pedlars licence can apply anywhere.
	When a trader is licensed locally, there is local control—the sort of localism of which most people in the House would probably approve. With the pedlar, that localism does not apply—people with accents rich and varied from the many parts of this great nation of ours can come into Manchester. The problem is that among them are the people who do sell dodgy watches, counterfeit goods and goods and services that simply do not work and rip off the public, or the people whose behaviour—through aggression or simply through sheer volume—is unacceptable.
	That problem has been controlled in areas where the powers have already been taken, such as here in London. Despite the concerns of the hon. Member for Christchurch about Westminster bridge, be there nothing so fair, the truth is that the powers have been used successfully, for example, to control pedlars and to prevent their setting up hotdog and hamburger stalls, which traditionally caused a nuisance in this city.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am glad that I have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am mindful of the fact that the sponsor of the Manchester City Council Bill, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd), is present; I congratulate him on opening the debate. My hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood), and for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) are here to represent their areas. The right hon. Member for Leeds, West (John Battle) and the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) are here as they have an interest in Leeds. I do not believe that anyone connected with Nottingham is present.  [Interruption.] I had forgotten; importantly, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson) is here to represent the interests of Reading. I congratulate all of them.
	The private Bill procedure being used by the House today is arcane. For the sake of absolute clarity, it is totally different from the private Member's Bill procedure. I have great knowledge of private Bill procedure, because within a fortnight of coming to this place, I was approached by my party's deputy Chief Whip, who asked what I was doing in a fortnight's time. Rather naively, I said, "Nothing in particular." He said, "Then I'd like you to serve on the Committee considering the British Waterways Bill." A year and a half later, we were still debating that private Bill, so I understand what is involved in the procedure relating to the private Bill that the hon. Member for Manchester, Central has brought before the House.
	I also understand the great difficulty that the local authorities involved face in trying to get their Bill enacted under that arcane procedure. Probably one of the greatest services that we could do those local authorities, the House and the country today is to try to press the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), to hold an overarching review of the way in which the market system works. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) did the House a huge service by introducing a Bill under the private Member's Bill procedure; unfortunately, his Bill faltered, but I think that he was on the right lines. He wanted an amendment to section 3 and schedule 4 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 to regulate the problem across the country. Previous private Bills on the same subject that have been enacted did exactly that. They—and, on the whole, the six Bills before us—insert the provisions of the Pedlars Act 1871 in paragraph (2)(a) of schedule 4 of the 1982 Act, so that pedlars are included in the schedule. I think that that is what the Bill of the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East sought to do.

Greg Knight: My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. The fact that a genuine pedlar applies for a licence in one part of the country and during the year trades in another is not of itself offensive or behaviour that should be outlawed. Will he accept that he inadvertently misled the House when he said that a pedlar can get a certificate with very little evidence of good character? As I understand it, the police check their database when an application is made. It is not for the applicant to prove his character. If the police see that he does not have a record, he clearly is of good character.

Tony Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman's exchange with the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) is interesting because the problem is that the pedlar's behaviour can be perfectly legal but still amount to nuisance. The issue is not the law's lack of clarity, but its lack of effectiveness in giving remedy to communities who suffer the excesses of those pedlars who are indifferent to their needs.

Gareth Thomas: It is a genuine pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), whose opening remarks reminded me of the one previous time that I engaged seriously with private Bill business. It was on the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill and a particularly traumatic experience, because a combination of the chief executive of the City of London and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) ensured that that Bill took an awfully long time to get through the House. As a result of that formative experience, I have studiously avoided private Bill business up to now.
	Nevertheless, it is a pleasure to represent the Government in this debate, not least for the opportunity to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd). I was almost tempted to say that he made an extremely cogent case for the Bill that he sponsors today—I say "almost tempted" because, as he will understand, it is a tradition that Governments do not offer views on private Bills. That, and the fact that the lumped me in with the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), makes me hesitate to endorse completely the points that he made. Nevertheless, he dealt with many of the points that Opposition Members raised with him.
	The Government have reflected on the opinions set out in letters to my Department from town centre managers and bodies representing licensed street traders, and on how the proposed legislation might affect the existing framework of law that affects street trading, and indeed the very old statute that relates to certified pedlary. I understand why some local authorities favour the changes set out in the Bills, and I recognise that some face particular difficulties with street trading. It is true that some of the difficulties may be caused by certified pedlars, but difficulties may equally be caused by traders acting outside either street trading or pedlar legislation.
	Unsurprisingly, some of the views stated in the debate echo the sentiments expressed by some noble Lords who contributed to the debate on the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill and the Manchester City Council Bill last November in the other place. As has been made clear, a number of interested parties believe strongly that there should be additional national street trading legislation.
	As well as the views expressed on one side of the debate, other views of course need to be considered. I am sure that some hon. Members have constituents who make their living as certified pedlars and whose livelihoods may be affected by changes to the law. Equally, some constituents whose interests are represented by hon. Members will benefit from the activity of legitimate pedlars. Their views must also be considered.
	As I made clear, it is not my role to offer a view on behalf of the Government on the contents of the private Bills. It is my specific role to confirm my view that the Bills' promoters have undertaken a full assessment of their compatibility with the European convention on human rights and that we do not see a need to dispute their conclusions.
	The hon. Member for Cotswold and, I suspect, one or two others raised the specific issue of the number of similar private Bills affecting the regulation of licensed street trading and certified pedlary. Seven private pieces of legislation affect street trading in addition to the Bills under discussion. However, hon. Members should bear it in mind that that is in the context of 410 city and borough councils in England and Wales. In saying that, I acknowledge that further similar private Bills may be introduced later this year. In addition, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) has led a campaign, including through the private Member's Bill that he has introduced, for a national street trading Act, creating additional local authority powers to regulate street trading and pedlary.
	The evidence at the moment for national legislation across all 410 local authority borough and district councils in England and Wales remains unclear. I have no doubt that there are particular problems in some areas, as some hon. Members have alluded to in the debate. However, it is not clear whether they are spread nationwide. In principle, it is our view that they are local matters best tackled in communities by local authorities.

Tony Lloyd: I am sure that the whole House will welcome the Minister's remarks as a significant indication of progress. Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) raises an important point. Few people argue for national legislation in the sense of uniform legislation from one end of the country to the other. Most people argue for a national framework that allows for local variation. In that context, it would be helpful if the Minister could ask the Durham university research team to look at specific problems, and it would also help if they were to look in particular at the geographical areas under discussion in terms of today's six Bills. Will he draw their attention to the fact that they can consider as part of their conclusions the need for variation within that national framework, so that, for example, Manchester does not need to have the same framework as Reading or Bournemouth, if that is appropriate?

Gareth Thomas: We hope that the research will be completed by the autumn and, as I said, we expect it to be published on the Department's website by the end of the year, so that interested parties, including Members of the House, can examine it. If there is sufficient evidence of a national problem, clearly the Government will have to reflect on what further action, if any, they should take. I recognise the need to draw the evidence together to see what the scale of the problem is. As is perhaps the situation now, it might be found that there are particular problems in particular places and it should still be the responsibility of individual authorities to make a judgment as to whether they need extra powers.
	In initiating this national review of the evidence base by Durham university, I am not seeking to cast aspersions on the case that the sponsors of the Bills are making today. It is for the House to reach its own judgment, in the traditional way, on the case that each of the Bills makes, and the Government remain neutral. As I have said, I recognise the concerns that have been raised, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East, who led in that regard, and we shall look at the national situation. I have made it clear that the evidence base remains unclear at the moment. We are seeking to clarify that by launching the research project in the way that I have described.

Gareth Thomas: With respect, I point out to the hon. Gentleman that there are some 410 local authorities in England and Wales, and nothing like close to a majority of them are seeking to introduce private Bills. On occasion, when local authorities have particular problems, it is for them to consider what actions they can take to deal with those problems. That is the principle of devolution and the principle behind the legislation that enables local authorities to take the specific actions required in their areas. Nevertheless, I recognise that there is a case for examining whether there is a need for national legislation and for examining what the national evidence base is. The evidence is unclear, which is why we are seeking to clarify the situation.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: Will the Minister draw the researchers' attention to the McCrory review of November 2006, many of whose recommendations the Government have accepted? It addressed statutory obligations and tightening up the way in which statute on the regulation of the likes of pedlars and on the penalties is used and enforced. Does he agree that that should be a starting point?

Gareth Thomas: From my research in preparation for this debate, I recognise that the considerable history behind this issue. I take my right hon. Friend's point about the legislation that has been introduced previously. The points that have been made in this debate will be made available to the researchers. Ultimately it is a decision for the Government, in the first place, and the House, more generally, as to whether we need to take further action after we have seen the conclusions reached by the researchers.
	As I have made clear, the Government's view is that the evidence base remains unclear. We are seeking to bring clarity to the issue, and that is the specific task of the Durham researchers. The research will be made available to all Members and those outside who are interested through publication on the Department's website.

Paul Truswell: Part of the problem with the hon. Gentleman's argument is that it is difficult to represent some of the issues in statistics unless we ask enforcement officers and the police to say how much time they have spent pursuing a particular issue. If we simply consider those who have been pursued under the existing legislation who might have been better dealt with under the new legislation, the statistics are probably quite marginal. We have to have confidence in the professionalism of police officers, trading standards officers and council officers, and in bodies such as NABMA, who try to come to grips with the issue, year in and year out. The evidence may sound anecdotal, but the problem is that the statistical case will never be as watertight as the hon. Gentleman seems to want it to be.

Julian Brazier: I will be brief, because a number of Members are waiting to speak and most of the points that I wanted to make have already been made very clearly, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), our Front-Bench spokesman.
	In a nutshell, the problem is that we are dealing with a very old and worthy piece of Victorian legislation that applies nationally and cuts across the ability of local councils to use the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. The Act was designed to, among other things, enable a council to say how many street traders it wanted and what it expected of them, and it allowed a council to enforce those decisions through a system of annual licensing. In some cases, the interval is much shorter than a year, but it should not be longer than a year.
	I shall take Canterbury city council as my example. The council has decided how many street traders it wants and how many it is fair to have on the High street. I understand that at the moment it has given 13 annual licences and five temporary licences. The pitches are all on one side of the street to allow free movement of people on our very crowded High street, which is pedestrianised. In summer, it is sometimes so full that people try to use side streets if they want to make their way somewhere on foot. That whole system is effectively blown away by the Pedlars Act 1871. As the hon. Members for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell), and for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd), said, the 1871 Act effectively means that people who have no local locus at all, and who could have picked up a pedlars certificate from almost anywhere in the country—they are very easy to forge, so the person may not even have bothered to pay the £12.50—can put up a stand on wheels on the wrong side of the road, blocking an already extremely crowded street. Even if they commit no other offence at all, that in itself is a huge problem in a city that is a major regional shopping and tourist centre.
	There are a number of other problems, some of which are already familiar from the remarks of other hon. Members. I ask my hon. Friends who object to the measures to think for a moment about enforcement. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) is a good friend and we see eye to eye on many subjects. He is a man of total integrity and is recognised as such across the House. I do not for a moment accuse him of a having vested interest, but the plain fact is that any attempt to enforce the measure involves lots of money for lawyers. It is extremely expensive not only in terms of money, but in terms of manpower.

Christopher Chope: Can my hon. Friend explain why it is expensive in terms of money for lawyers and manpower to find out that somebody has a pedlars certificate that is forged and to prosecute that person, when there is in every police authority in the country a register of pedlars certificates that have been issued?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: May I suggest to my hon. Friend and the House a succinct way dealing with the problem? This is how it has been dealt with in the Manchester City Council Bill and other Bills. As I pointed out in my speech, it is simply to amend schedule 4 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 to restrict the definition of pedlar to someone who goes only from house to house. That would deal with the problem of static stalls in any of the busy areas my hon. Friend's city, and it would allow his council to designate a particular area as one where nobody may trade. The council could then prohibit anyone from trading in any such difficult area.

Tobias Ellwood: I have not even got out of the starting blocks, yet I have been intervened on three times. I am more than delighted to be intervened on, but let me try to put forward a case for looking at the provisions in further detail.
	I hope that my hon. Friend would agree that our objective in Parliament is to allow the democratic process to take its course. More than 70 authorities are thinking about similar proposals. Is he saying that they are all wrong? Why not give an opportunity to debate the issue in more detail? He is saying, "Throw it out!" whereas I am saying, "Give it a little more time, then let's make an assessment later on," which could include hearing from the good people of Bridgwater.
	I was in the middle of paying tribute to Lord Eden of Winton, who did such an amicable job of moving the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill through its various stages in the House of Lords, where it received an awful lot of scrutiny. I recommend that hon. Members read the  Hansard reports of those debates, which are so applicable to what we are talking about today.
	I was pleased to hear an indication from the Minister that we will consider the matter in more detail. I am sorry to hear that the provisions will not be in the Queen's Speech—we have already heard from the Prime Minister what will be in it, and the report that we are due to receive will not come until autumn.
	The summary of the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill is: to make provisions relating to street trading and consumer protection in the area of Bournemouth; in particular to allow the council to regulate services offered on the street as well as the sale of goods; to alter the exemption enjoyed by the holders of the pedlars certificates from the street trading regime in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982; to empower council officers or the police to seize goods and equipment when they believe a street trading offence has been committed; and to empower the courts to order the forfeiture of such articles.
	Why is that being called for? The existing laws, I am afraid, are simply not working. The situation in Canterbury that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) described also applies in Bournemouth. We have confusing and out-of-date laws. I hope that my hon. Friends who have spoken against the Bills will not support the status quo. There is a blurred line between a pedlar and a trader. Two Acts of Parliament that were written a century apart are colliding in a major way, and people are taking advantage of it.
	What is a pedlar? Trading by a person who is an authorised pedlar is exempt from the provisions of the 1982 Act. As other Members have said, however, to become a legitimate pedlar one simply has to gain a certificate issued by the police and keep on the move. The licence costs a mere £12.50, and can be applied for and gained anywhere in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. It can also be used anywhere in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, except in those areas where Acts similar to the Bills under consideration have been put into practice. That is a double standard, and that is why I plead with my hon. Friends and other Members not to preserve the status quo, which is unacceptable.

Tobias Ellwood: I do not follow that argument at all. We have to license street traders because of other laws. There are issues to do with insurance liability and so forth. If anyone has a stand that is permanent and not moving, as according to the 1871 Act, he needs to operate accordingly. I suggest my hon. Friend reads the 1982 Act, which requires street traders to pay for a licence. That licence costs in the region of between £25 and £30 a day, not £12.50 a year.

Tobias Ellwood: We have a series of problems. The Bournemouth Borough Council Bill, which I shall discuss in a moment, includes changes to local legislation that will allow us to tackle the problem.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) has discussed his constituency. I am sure that he knows Purbeck district council, which has not experienced the problem of pedlars on the same scale as in Bournemouth. Purbeck district council is not affected by the problem, so it does not require such legislation.
	I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), back in his place. He does not need to get feedback from 410 local authorities across the country, but it would be helpful. The issue is pertinent in seaside towns and market towns where there are tourists and visitors, who allow pedlars and, indeed, street traders to make a profit. We need a reconciliation between the two types of trader who are taking advantage of two distinctive and disparate Acts of Parliament.
	As shadow Minister with responsibility for tourism, I have a national interest in the matter—I see that the Culture, Media and Sport spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), is in his place. We must ensure that British tourism thrives. We are currently suffering from a tourism deficit—more people choose to holiday abroad than in the UK—and we need to make Britain attractive. If there is any reason why people are deterred from going to our seaside towns, we must investigate the situation. The matter needs more scrutiny, which could take place in Committee.
	Illegal street training is flourishing. We have heard examples involving sunglasses and kites, and the quality of such goods is certainly dubious. We have also heard from hon. Members about the fact that there is no comeback. If people buy goods from a pedlar, they cannot return one week later and try to get their money back if something has gone wrong. However, people can get their money back from a street trader, so the circumstances are different. Unfortunately, because of the way in which the Pedlars Act 1871 was drafted, pedlars are illegally selling mimicked, oriental goods, which are entering this country in increasing numbers. As we have heard, there is very little recourse to prevent that from happening. Health and safety has been mentioned, so I will not go into further detail.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has suggested using the existing legislation to get the police to tell pedlars to move on or to get the council to go through the process of charging them, but it is not that simple. It now costs the council about £1,000 to go through the rigmarole of warnings and so forth, which my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has been through. By that time, the individual has scarpered, regardless of whether they were using an illegal licence or a legitimate licence.
	We have a lot of eastern Europeans in Bournemouth. They pick up licences because a master who is operating the store has told them to do so. Such masters send out individuals every week knowing that the licence will probably be taken away eventually, in which case they send another individual out instead. That is not how our markets should operate; that is not how our town centres will flourish; and that is not the way to look after our seaside resorts. Prosecution involves charging individuals £100, but the process costs the council £1,000. It does not take a rocket scientist to work out that that wastes an awful lot of taxpayers' money.
	Pedlars have an impact on legitimate businesses, whether street traders or shopkeepers. They should not be seen as street traders, and they are required to move from place to place. Clause 5 of the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill amends the appropriate schedule to the 1982 Act to make it clear that a pedlar will not be able to trade in a prohibited street unless they are trading from place to place, and that they cannot trade in a consented street until they first obtain consent from the local council. That would not prevent anyone from peddling, which is one argument that has been advanced. I am not against pedlars per se, but the practice should be conducted in an authorised manner, which is what I am looking for. Bournemouth, along with other places around the country, is a first-class destination resort, but it is currently served by third-class legislation.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) wanted some evidence. Let me share with him some correspondence that I received, which oddly enough is not directed at me, but at one Christopher Chope—my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. I will read it out anyway. The first is from the British Resorts and Destinations Association, and says:
	"I am writing on behalf of the Local Authority members of the British Resorts and Destinations Association...Regrettably, until such time as Central Government act to repeal or significantly amend the existing pedlars' legislation, towns like Bournemouth will have no choice but to seek local solutions."
	That is from BRADA, as it is called. Castlepoint is a big, private shopping centre in Bournemouth, of which hon. Members may be aware. Its letter states:
	"On a recent customer survey at the centre, one of the main criticisms of Bournemouth town centre was the number of unsolicited activities that take place in the town compared to Castlepoint where no such activity is permitted. I do not wish Bournemouth to continue to haemorrhage customers since a vibrant Bournemouth town centre is good for us at Castlepoint, too...The unlicensed pedlars tarnish that brand."
	That is from Peter Matthews, a general manager at Castlepoint, who refers to some of the surveys that have been conducted in Bournemouth.
	The final letter is from the Bournemouth War Memorial Homes charity. It states:
	"Last summer the Residents who are all disabled ex-service personnel were granted a licence to fund-raise in Bournemouth Square.
	Ten residents volunteered to collect on the day. The net result was a total of £67"—
	we are talking about a day's collection—
	"entirely due to the fact that their modest stand could not be seen by the general public as there were so many unregulated traders everywhere, some quite nasty and unsympathetic to those who have served our country."
	Their licence cost them £30, for that day, for the privilege of collecting money in the town centre. They made £67, and there were other costs, such as public liability insurance and so forth. That is the reality of the legislation, which is why I urge hon. Friends and other hon. Members to say that we should look at it further. We should move to the next stage and debate it in Committee. Pedlars should not be street traders, which is why I believe that the legislation is archaic and should be upgraded.
	Can it be that 70 councils throughout the UK are wrong? We have a bizarre situation, which I referred to in an intervention, where up to 10 million people—residents and in businesses—are already living in areas where this legislation is in operation, such as Northern Ireland, London, Leicester, Liverpool and Medway. Other councils, including Bournemouth, Manchester, Leeds, Nottingham, Reading and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury are queuing up to say that we should change the legislation and bring it up to date, to allow a better understanding of the predicament involving the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 and the Pedlars Act 1871.

Tobias Ellwood: My hon. Friend makes a valid point that has been repeated again and again. In Newcastle, such legislation was brought in successfully, and a lot of the pedlars moved across to Gateshead. The first question is: why are those pedlars who wanted to operate in Newcastle not applying to be legitimate? Why are they not choosing to do things above board? I do not wish to disparage my hon. Friend's constituency but, as in the case of Bournemouth, there has to be a threshold of a thoroughfare of people—either residents or tourists. I am sure that there are many visitors to his area. But there are some areas—I mentioned Purbeck as an example—where such legislation would not be required. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) made it clear: any new legislation should empower rather than enforce councils to operate revised pedlar provisions.
	Time is running short, so I shall end by simply saying that the Government have taken a small step in the right direction. I hope that the Minister, and other Members, will listen to those whose voices we are hearing throughout the United Kingdom. There is, I believe, a consensus in the House and the nation in favour of change. I certainly believe that we need to give councils the power—but not necessarily the duty—to make decisions locally.
	I welcome the Government's announcement, because I do not support the status quo. This is unfinished business, and if it is not finished today, I hope that it will be in 24 months' time if not earlier, after a general election.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I thank the Minister for clarifying the position, and apologise for mishearing the word "autumn".
	One group who have kept very quiet about this, perhaps for a reason of which I am not aware, is the Local Government Association, which covers every area of local government in the country. I have yet to hear anything from the LGA.

Tobias Ellwood: May I return my hon. Friend what he said about CCTV? It is a great idea, but Bridgwater must be an extremely rich council, because CCTV is expensive. If my hon. Friend gave Bournemouth some money, we would be delighted to install it. More to the point, the Local Government Association supports these Bills.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: May I finish my point first? They will all be affected because people will be moved on—my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) made this point. This will affect us all. We have a large fair in Bridgewater and we have had a problem, but through sensible and constructive actions by the police, trading officers and the council, we have not had a problem with pedlars. We have been proactive and the action we have taken has worked extremely well.

Greg Knight: Will my hon. Friend accept that we should view with some scepticism any opinions expressed by the LGA, and when we gather evidence we need evidence other than the fact that councils want these powers? Local authorities might want these powers because the fact that pedlars can operate at a cheaper rate shows that their high fees for street trading are unjustifiable.

Christopher Chope: I had not yet got on to Nottingham. I was going to begin by discussing Bournemouth, because that is closer to home and my constituency. Those hon. Members who were not able to listen to BBC Radio Solent this morning might like to know that on it, Mark Smith, Bournemouth borough council's head of tourism, asserted that he thought one of the problems in Bournemouth town centre was that pedlars were harassing people. Many people subsequently phoned in, e-mailed or sent text messages to BBC Radio Solent saying that they disagreed fundamentally with what he had said. The context of that discussion was very much that the case had not been proved for introducing such draconian changes to the law on a unilateral basis, which is what Bournemouth borough council intends to do.
	May I briefly share with the House some correspondence that I have had with the store manager of Marks & Spencer in Bournemouth? He wrote to me expressing concern about my attitude to the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill. I wrote back saying:
	"You say that the Pedlars Act is a piece of legislation from Victorian times. That is obviously correct but am I not also correct in recalling that it was under pedlars legislation that Marcus Sieff was able to build up the large business with which you are now associated?"
	He has not responded to that question. I also asked him:
	"Why should those who wish to sell balloons"
	—the people who at the beginning of an entrepreneurial career—
	"to tourists in Bournemouth not be allowed to do so?"
	I have yet to receive a response to that either.

Andrew Love: I was hoping that the previous debate might end a little early and give me more time, so I shall need to speed along to try to get to all the points I want to raise.
	This debate is about the level of deprivation in Edmonton, and I seek to show that deprivation and worklessness are increasing rapidly in the London borough of Enfield, in which my constituency is situated. Of course, the borough does not adequately reflect the intensity of the real difficulty faced in my constituency. There is enormous disparity in the London borough of Enfield and my area is the one that has the most intense deprivation. I also seek to show that future employment opportunities in north London are in steep decline, causing some concern locally. Public funding to address the issues of deprivation and worklessness is being either withdrawn or cut. As a result of that, I want to ask the Minister what he can do to support my constituents.
	Let me start with some limited good news. The local government settlement for Enfield meant that we received the third highest formula grant in London. We should have received 9.5 per cent. but received only 4.5 per cent. It was reduced because we had to ensure that the 29 London boroughs that had lost out in the process received the minimum floor in terms of the formula grant. When I requested an explanation of the settlement from my local authority, it said:
	"Enfield's formula grant increased by so much largely due to increases in certain indicators that feed through to formula totals including unemployment-related benefit claimants...and Incapacity Benefit...claimants".
	Let me give some examples. The number of claimants of income support has shot up in my constituency and the London borough of Enfield. From 2001 to 2006, Enfield had the highest increase in the country—13.7 per cent.—at a time when the national figures were decreasing by 6.5 per cent. Enfield is the 17th highest area in terms of incapacity benefit claimants and second highest in the country in terms of lone parents. Worklessness has increased, rising by more than 17 per cent. in 2006. There is also what we call the London effect, which was defined in a 2006 Treasury paper entitled "London Employment". The paper stated that
	"some national policy responses to unemployment and economic inactivity can be less effective in London. Policies intended to raise the financial gain to work can be less effective in London because housing costs and costs of working can be higher".
	According to a recent study, my local residents have the 25th smallest incomes in the country, and the fourth smallest pay packets in London. Incomes locally are very low, but the conditions in my local authority of Enfield do not tell the whole story. There are huge disparities across the borough, as I shall show. The gross median wage is £385 in Edmonton, £446 in the more affluent areas, and £495 in the most affluent part. Similarly, unemployment in January totalled 5.8 per cent. in Edmonton, 3.9 per cent. in the more affluent areas and as low as 2.6 per cent. in the most affluent part of the borough. Enfield is not alone in having such great disparities, and that is especially true in London, but the people who work out the levels of need must recognise that there are real differences between London boroughs when it comes to deprivation and worklessness.
	I turn now to employment opportunities in the future. In 2006, a seminal study entitled "Employment Projections in Outer London" was carried out by the London School of Economics. It concluded that only 10 per cent. of the growth in employment in London to 2016 would be in outer London, and that there would be nil growth in employment in both Enfield and in parts of south London.
	The reasons are complex, but there are structural weaknesses in the Enfield economy. We are more dependent on jobs in industry and public services, and those sectors are the least likely to grow in the years to 2016. We are also sandwiched between the dynamic inner part of London, where there will be significant job growth, and the competitive home countries that will also do well in the given period.
	The London borough of Enfield is also likely to have significant population growth over the next 15 years. When those two facts are put together, the implication is that there will be more commuters who live locally but work in either central London or the home counties, and that will place capacity constraints on public transport. The major growth in central London will be in jobs in finance and business services, but they do not suit everyone. They especially do not suit people with lower skill levels, of whom there are many in my constituency.
	The LSE report suggested that greater focus should be placed on the London development plan, which has four development corridors. The one in north London runs through Cambridge and Peterborough, and the study very strongly recommended that there needed to be more funding for that development activity.
	I turn next to the resources that we should be able to deploy to address some of the local weaknesses that I have outlined. European structural funding includes the social fund and the regional development fund. Until 2006 Enfield had objective 2 status, but the shift of resources to the east of Europe meant that there had to be a significant reduction in structural funding. There was an option to replace that with national funding, but it was not taken up.
	The Government's national strategic reference framework removed objective 2 status for north London, and as a result we lost a series of large project funds. We also lost the funding available through the grants to objective 2 areas. Subsequently, we have discovered that only €182 million will be available for European regional development funding in the whole of London over the next six years, and that is not enough to cope with the difficulties that we face.
	There used to be a very comprehensive programme of other London development area funding, but it was replaced recently by what is called "spatial targeting". The implications are not clear yet, but we know already that there will be no "as of right" awards for the regeneration opportunities in my constituency. As a result, there will not be enough funding for my area.
	When we consider London Development Agency support for the Olympics, we see that resources meant for other parts of London, including my area, have been sucked into providing the site assembly costs and other costs related to development for the Olympics. It is clearly an incredibly important project for the country, but it should not be at the expense of local funding. We should have been receiving something in the region of £30 million for the upper Lee valley in my area, yet so far we have received only £6 million, which is well short of what was expected.
	It seems strange that when London has the highest rate of child poverty in the country and the lowest employment rate, we shall across London receive so little assistance from the working neighbourhoods fund. Indeed, Enfield, which was a neighbourhood renewal funding area, will now become a transitional authority and the resources that would have been available will be phased out over the next few years, yet six local authorities that will receive working neighbourhood funding have a lower claimant rate than the London borough of Enfield. Twelve local authorities that will receive working neighbourhood funding have a higher employment rate, so it seems somewhat perverse, given the intense difficulties in my area, that such funding will not be available to it.
	We are told that the intention is that the money should address entrenched pockets of worklessness where we have not been successful in the past. However, when we consider the cost of making unemployed local residents job-ready, we discover that it can be extremely high. A recent London Development Agency study on tackling worklessness suggested that the cost of preparing people for employment and sustaining them in it could range from anything between £5,000 and £30,000 over a significant period. That seems very expensive to achieve the aims of the working neighbourhoods fund.
	Work in the area is being done at local authority level, yet in respect of other economic development spending, such as the economic growth initiative and the multiple area agreements, it has been suggested that to achieve the greatest benefit we need to work at a level higher than that of the local authority. Local authorities need to come together, but there seems to be a contradiction between that and the operation of working neighbourhood funding. Surely we need to try to achieve the maximum impact both on worklessness and in trying to improve prosperity.
	Finally, I deal with local area agreements, which were set up to complement neighbourhood renewal funding and to narrow the gap between the most deprived parts of a local area and the rest. Among the objectives agreed by central Government, local government and local strategic partnerships were to set targets that would stretch performance locally. It was agreed that we would try to join up public services and, most important in this context, to allow
	"greater flexibility for local solutions to local circumstances".
	However, in the London context problems are not always local. The enormous churn and movement across London boroughs can mean that many of the problems in my area and in Enfield are related to difficulties in surrounding boroughs, or even boroughs in other parts of London. Often, with regard to worklessness, which is the focus of much of the activity, the challenge cannot be dealt with only at local level: we need more than just local resources if we are to deal with the problems. I could go into detail about some of the intense worklessness in my area.
	A recent report produced by Enfield strategic partnership, entitled "Building Futures—Changing Lives", indicated that according to the Government's research the London borough of Enfield had moved from 104th to 70th in the most deprived list over the past four years. In the past three years, there have been 6 per cent. more children in families living on benefits. In one of the wards in my constituency, 29 per cent. of people are workless. In one of the super-output areas—a much smaller, localised area—the figure is up to 36 per cent. How will we deal with that intensity of difficulty?
	Deprivation and worklessness are increasing rapidly, and that may get even worse now that the economic cycle is in a downturn. Neighbourhood renewal funding locally is coming to an end. No European Union structural funds, working neighbourhood funds or local economic growth initiative funds are available. We do not have the apparatus to deal with the problems that face us.
	I have tried to leave the Minister plenty of time to respond to this debate. Will he indicate some of the matters in respect of which I may knock on his door and those of other Departments to try to address the real difficulties that we are facing, and will face to an even greater extent in future?

Parmjit Dhanda: I entirely agree. In his speech, my hon. Friend issued a challenge—he said that he wanted to be able to come and knock on my door or on other doors in the Department. I would be delighted to take up that offer, to see what specific assistance we can give him.
	Let me say a little about local area agreements, which my hon. Friend mentioned. The challenge and drive of the new local area agreements could be the key. As he knows, money is not the only solution to the complex challenges that his constituency faces. As a Government, we are making a real difference by enabling a change in the way key local service providers and communities work together to deliver more efficient and, I hope, better local public services. The partnership approach has to be the way forward, and I believe Enfield takes that seriously.
	I mentioned the new local area agreements—the new performance framework for local government, which was outlined in the White Paper "Strong and Prosperous Communities". That framework is about improving the quality of life and improving public services. It brings together national standards and priorities set by Government and local priorities developed by the local authority and its partners.
	The Government have significantly increased local authorities' flexibility in the use of their mainstream resources by moving more than £4 billion of grants into the new non-ring-fenced area based grant. That is the key—the fact that Government are encouraging local government to cut out some of the bureaucracy that it has had to face in the past and meet the challenges that most affect local communities. That will minimise the barriers to local authorities using their mainstream resources to support local priorities where they wish to do so. For Enfield and Edmonton, those local priorities are the ones that my hon. Friend eloquently described. From 1 April 2008, those funds are allocated on a three-year basis to maximise stability and provide longer-term certainty.
	Area based grant is a general grant allocated directly to local authorities as additional revenue funding. It is allocated according to specific policy criteria, rather than general formulae. Local authorities are free to use the all of that non-ring-fenced funding as they see fit to support the delivery of local, regional and national priorities in their areas. Of the £4 billion national area based grant allocation, Enfield will receive about £15.8 million. As central Government no longer dictate to the local authority how much should be spent on each initiative, strategic decisions about how to spend the money will be made at local level and depend on local priorities. I urge local authorities to work with and listen to local Members of Parliament when deciding where best to place those resources.
	I know that time is running short so I will conclude my remarks by saying that my hon. Friend has made an important contribution and I will continue to do all I can to help and support him. Our door is always open to him.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Seven o'clock.